In this article, some troubling developments in two of the smallest economies of the OECD are examined. Referred to in John Mauldin’s Weekly E-Letter entitled Fingers of Instability, it will be published in full by Traders Mag. It may be accessed at http://www.TradingEducation.com/kiwi
With the release of final fourth-quarter 2005 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data for emerging and industrialized nations around the world, market watchers got another indication of the state of the global economy. Not surprisingly, China led the
list with a GDP growth rate of 9.9%, followed by Hong Kong (7.6%) and India (7.6%). Eastern European stars Estonia (10.5%), Latvia (10.5%) and Lithuania (8.2%) also shone brightly.
But a quintessential star performer that has benefited from strong commodity prices in the last few years provided a warning that could be the beginning of a global market ripple effect. After 21 consecutive quarters of gains, New Zealand surprised economists both at home and abroad with the report that its economy had contracted 0.1% in Q4. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand had previously forecast a growth rate of 2.4% for the year and 0.4% for the quarter. There was little doubt that few, including the New Zealand Reserve Bank governor, expected such a rapid drop. And New Zealand was not the only trouble spot.
The Bleeding Edge
With the news, the “R” word resurfaced in the media. To make matters worse, the current account deficit, which had been increasing steadily since 2001, hit 8.9% of GDP, bigger than the record U.S. Q4-2005 current account deficit of 7% of GDP. It was the largest deficit in New Zealand since 1984.
Figure 1 – On a quarterly basis, the New Zealand annual current account deficit hit a 22-year high of 8.9% in Q4-2005. The highest current account deficit in modern times occurred in 1974 when it hit 11.8% of GDP. After recovering slightly, it again hit 8.9% of GDP in 1984.
Source: Data by Statistics NZ; chart by www.TradingEducation.com
New Zealand is not alone. More signs of trouble came to light halfway around the world at the March 22 government bond auction in Iceland. Financial Times reported that the Icelandic debt management agency failed to sell any bonds because investors demanded a yield of 8.52%, a figure that was too rich for the government. This was the second consecutive month that the agency failed to sell any bonds at auction. At its last successful auction in January, the yield averaged 8.11%.
Investors are concerned with a recent large drop in bond prices. Since the summer of 2003, the Icelandic stock market has quadrupled and property values have doubled in an overheated economy. That analysts at Iceland’s Danske Bank forecast a national financial crisis and severe recession on March 21 did not help soothe nervous bond investors. Danske Bank is projecting an economic contraction of between 5% and 10% over the next two years and drops in investment by as much as 40% and in consumer spending of as much as 10% over the same period, according to Financial Times. The annual current account deficit in Iceland hit a whopping 16% of GDP in 2005.
Since the beginning of the year, the Iceland krona has fallen 12%, forcing the Icelandic central bank to raise interest rates 75 basis points to 11.5% on March 30, 2006. Before the most recent hike, the central bank had raised the rate 12 times since May 2004 by a total of 545 basis points to 10.75%. More hikes will undoubtedly be necessary, increasing the chances of recession. A Fitch downgrade of the credit outlook for Iceland in late February caused the krona to lose 12.7% over the next month.
How important is a current account deficit to longer-term currency strength? According to the Wall Street Journal, the Federal Reserve conducted a study in 2000 that examined major industrialized countries running current-account deficits and the impact on their currencies. In 25 cases from 1980-97, the typical current-account reversal began when the deficit hit 5% of GDP and was accompanied by 10% to 20% currency depreciation. It is interesting to note that with the exception of the United States, the nations with the highest current account deficits to GDP ratios in 2005, namely Iceland (16%), New Zealand (8.9%), Hungary (7.5%), Turkey (6.5%) and Australia (6%) are all encountering economic and currency challenges in 2006.
Figure 2 – A daily chart of the NZD shows an 18.7% drop in the Kiwi against the U.S. dollar from the high in March 2005 to the end of March 2006.
Source: VantagePoint Intermarket Analysis Software (www.TraderTech.com)
Global Experiment Down Under Begins Even as the economy slowed into negative territory, the New Zealand stock market continued to soar. As of the end of March 2006, the New Zealand NZX 50 Index was up nearly 9% for the month and up nearly 10% for 2006.
But the problem is that over the same period (Q1-2006), the New Zealand dollar (kiwi) lost 11.5%, nullifying any gains for foreign investors. In the year prior to March 31, 2006, the currency plunged more than 18%. There is a strong likelihood that the kiwi will suffer further depreciation without rate increases to support it. (Thanks in part to weakening currencies, Australian and New Zealand stock markets were the only two that under performed the S&P 500 Index in the first quarter of 2006, according to the Wall Street Journal).
In an analysis of 56 currencies against 11 criteria in late March 2006 that included the Hungarian Forint, the Polish zloty, the Turkish lira and the Australian and New Zealand dollars, Graham Turner of GFC Economics judged the kiwi the riskiest of the lot. He noted that [interest rates among the highest in the industrialized world] have failed to halt a fall in the New Zealand dollar to a 22-month low against the U.S. dollar.
“A falling currency is a double-edged sword,” notes Darrell Jobman, Editor-in-Chief of www.TradingEducation.com. “Initially, it might seem favorable, but longer-term consequences are often negative.”
Assets in New Zealand become less expensive to foreigners, and a weak kiwi puts downward pressure on the trade deficit by making New Zealand goods cheaper abroad and foreign goods more expensive for New Zealanders. But if the trend continues, it will make attracting investment from abroad more difficult and exerts upward pressure on rates. This is not good news for borrowing costs, which are kept in check through foreign investment and the purchase of government bond instruments.
Due to its size (population 4 million) and relative isolation, interest rates have generally been higher in New Zealand. After hitting a high of nearly 25% in 1985, the overnight rate declined steadily, dropping below 10% in 1991, then down to 5% in 1999. Rates bottomed at 3.30% in January 1999 and have seesawed since up to 7.25%. They fluctuated between 5% and 7% from 1998 through 2005. The overnight rate moved up to 7.25% in January 2006 and remained there into April. This compared to a U.S. Fed funds rate in March of 4.75%. New Zealand Reserve Bank governor Alan Bollard has ruled out further hikes, pending more economic data.
Until recently, the kiwi economy performed strongly with GDP growth hitting a high of 7% in 1994 (see Figure 3), outperforming the economies of the United States, Australia and Japan much of the time. In the last 15 years, it has suffered through two recessions including one in the early 1990s that lasted for nearly three years. If Q1-2006 GDP growth proves to be negative, this would be its third. (Australia also reported weaker-than-expected GDP growth of just 0.5% for Q4-2005. For the year, GDP grew 2.5%.)
Figure 3 – The annualized percent change in GDP of New Zealand, the United States, Australia and Japan between 1990 and Q3-2005. New Zealand’s economy shrank 0.1% in Q4-2005 (not shown on this chart) compared to GDP growth rates of 0.5% in Australia, 1.7% in the United States, and 5.4% in Japan for the quarter.
Source: Data from Datastream, SNZ; chart from www.TradingEducation.com
Other than a current account deficit at unsustainable levels, plunging currency and soaring rates, New Zealand is suffering from declining foreign direct investment, which plunged from net investment of $127 million in Q4-2004 to a net deficit of $772 million NZ at the start of 2005.
Another, albeit less serious challenge facing the nation, has been disappointing productivity growth. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), New Zealand currently has the second highest level of personal income tax as a share of total tax revenue among 30 member nations. Tax rates and productivity are negatively correlated. Overall, total tax revenue is 35% of GDP in New Zealand compared to 31.6% in Australia and 25.6% in the United States. Iceland’s tax/GDP ratio of 39.6% is among the highest of OECD nations. Canada, with a tax burden of 34% of GDP, has a similar productivity problem vis-a-vis it’s biggest trading partner, the United States.
Bubble, Bubble, Housing in Trouble?
There has been much discussion about the importance that real estate has gained in global economies. In 2005, residential housing accounted for 16% of U.S. GDP, making it the single biggest part of the economy. It accounted for 50% of overall U.S. economic growth in the first half of the year and more than one-half of private sector jobs created, according to Bloomberg News. Sixty-eight percent of households in the United States are owner-occupied. Thanks to rapidly appreciating real estate prices, homes have been used as ATM machines for a large number of consumers. There is concern that any slowdown in price momentum, therefore, would have a seriously negative side effect on consumer spending, the single biggest component of the economy.
Despite the challenges and in spite of some of the highest interest rates of the developed world, property values in New Zealand have remained strong (see Figure 4).
Housing prices are computed differently in New Zealand than either the United States or Canada. Instead of monitoring average or median sale prices for different areas, a total valuation index is calculated (see http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/keygraphs/1697975.html). Regardless, the index provides an accurate way of tracking real estate price appreciation. Housing prices jumped 75% between late 2001 and 2005. Even with 2-year fixed rates at 8.3% and floating rates of 9.6% as of January 2006, home prices were still appreciating at nearly 15% annually at the end of 2005.
Figure 4 – Even with high interest rates, median prices for all categories of homes in New Zealand jumped 75% between 2001 and Q3-2005.
Source: Data from Quotable Value Limited; chart from www.TradingEducation.com.
In a March 2, 2006, housing survey by the Economist, New Zealand still had the second fastest annual house-price appreciation at 16.8%, second only to Denmark, which was up 17.7%. The United States was sixth, with a national annualized price appreciation rate of 13%. However, the article noted that, after topping the list with a 20% annual gain in 2003, prices in Australia by late 2005 were up only 2.3% from a year earlier and up just 0.2% from Q4-2004.
Although New Zealand property prices appreciated faster than those in the United States, the two nations have more in common than similar GDP growth rates and big current account deficits. The overall level of debt (total credit market debt) in the United States currently is approaching 320% of GDP, and household debt is at record levels. A similar situation exists in New Zealand, where household debt has risen rapidly from 100% of average annual income in 1999 to more than 150% by year-end 2005, the majority of which is mortgage debt. As debt levels rise, interest rates take on increasing importance.
“Global property markets have taken on increasing economic importance over the last six years,” commented Robert W. Colby, market analyst for TradingEducation.com. “Large amounts of capital shifted into real estate when the Internet bubble burst in 2000 and this trend gained momentum as interest rates declined to 46-year lows. As markets cool and interest rates rise, the ability of consumers to access mortgage equity withdrawals is curtailed and consumer spending is a prime casualty. What recent data have shown is the surprising speed at which this can impact economic performance.”
“Once an economy starts to contract, its real estate market has traditionally not been far behind, except now economic growth is more dependent on appreciating property values that at any time since the late 1980s in Japan,” Colby adds.
Economic Pioneers
It has been said that the way to identify pioneers is to look for those on the path in front of you face down with arrows in their backs. New Zealand is ahead of the U.S. in two important respects. It is nearer the end of its interest rate hike cycle and further along in its economic cycle, therefore nearer a slowdown and possible recession. Data from down under for the next two quarters will tell us much.
More important perhaps is the fact that New Zealand’s real estate market has experienced rapid price appreciation since 2001 combined with rapidly expanding debt levels. As noted above, property prices in Australia, which were appreciating faster than in the United States, have leveled, and the Australian economy has also begun to cool. Iceland, with an ongoing currency crisis and skyrocketing interest rates, provides another test case. Real estate prices will be under steadily increasing pressure from rising interest rates and cooling economies.
Although the economies of New Zealand, Australia and Iceland are smaller than those of the United States, United Kingdom, Germany or France, the smaller nations are members of the OECD and among the 30 largest economies of the world. What happens to these markets, therefore, cannot be ignored and will provide investors with valuable insights into what they can expect as the global economy cools. The results will reveal whether current high property values and recent stock market gains are sustainable and if the much hoped for soft landing is a realistic possibility or economic pipe dream.